About gynocentrism

Gynocentrism n. (Greek, γυνή, “female” – Latin centrum, “centred” ) refers to a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice; or to the advocacy of this.1 Anything can be considered gynocentric (Adj.) when it is concerned exclusively with a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view.2

[see here for more dictionary definitions of gynocentrism]


Modern gynocentrism is facilitated by three interrelated pressures, the first biological and the subsequent two being cultural developments:

Gynocentrism 1:0 refers to basic instinctual behavior inherited from our hominid ancestors for prioritizing female reproductive capacity; that is, we tend to protect and provide for women and children as a way to encourage survival of our species, a tendency reinforced by varying local customs throughout history until the Middle Ages, when a confluence of cultural factors came together to create gynocentrism 2:0

Gynocentrism 2:0 – refers to a cultural intensification of the gynocentric tendency, arising in Medieval Europe during a period cross-cultural influences and momentous changes in gendered customs. Beginning in around the 12th century European society birthed an intersection of Arabic practices of female worship, aristocratic courting trends, the Marian cult, along with the imperial patronage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie De Champagne who together elaborated the military notion of chivalry into a notion of servicing ladies, a practice otherwise known as ‘courtly love.’

Courtly love was enacted by minstrels, playrights and troubadours, and especially via hired romance-writers like Chrétien de Troyes and Andreas Capellanus who laid down a model of romantic fiction that is still the biggest grossing genre of literature today. That confluence of factors generated the cultural conventions that continue to drive gynocentrism today, which was consolidated by one significant further development.

Gynocentrism 3:0, which refers to the developed economy with service industry where women can enter labour force and gain financial independence from men, which (1) creates demand for more rights vis-a-vis men because there is no longer a trade-off as in traditional relationships, and (2) renders women free to pursue increasing degrees of relational status as desired. These factors, in combination with the contraceptive pill, have given gynocentrism increased motility.3

Gynocentrism as a cultural phenomenon

The primary elements of gynocentric culture, as we experience it today, are derived from practices originating in medieval society such as feudalism, chivalry and courtly love that continue to inform contemporary society in subtle ways. Such gynocentric patters constitute a “sexual feudalism,” as attested by female writers like Lucrezia Marinella who in 1600 AD recounted that women of lower socioeconomic classes were treated as superiors by men who acted as servants or beasts born to serve them, or by Modesta Pozzo who in 1590 wrote;

“don’t we see that men’s rightful task is to go out to work and wear themselves out trying to accumulate wealth, as though they were our factors or stewards, so that we can remain at home like the lady of the house directing their work and enjoying the profit of their labors? That, if you like, is the reason why men are naturally stronger and more robust than us — they need to be, so they can put up with the hard labor they must endure in our service.”4

The golden casket above depicting scenes of servile behaviour toward women were typical of courtly love culture of the Middle Ages. Such objects were given to women as gifts by men seeking to impress. Note the woman standing with hands on hips in a position of authority, and the man being led around by a neck halter, his hands clasped in a position of subservience.

It’s clear that much of what we today call gynocentrism was invented in the Middle Ages with the cultural practices of romantic chivalry and courtly love. In 12th century Europe, feudalism served as the basis for a new model for love in which men were to play the role of vassal to women who played the role of an idealized Lord.

C.S. Lewis, back in the middle of the 20th Century, referred to this historical revolution as “the feudalisation of love,” and stated that it has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched. “Compared with this revolution,” states Lewis, “the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature.”5 Lewis further states;

“Everyone has heard of courtly love, and everyone knows it appeared quite suddenly at the end of the eleventh century at Languedoc. The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim. Here is a service of love closely modelled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady’s ‘man’. He addresses her as midons, which etymologically represents not ‘my lady’ but ‘my lord’. The whole attitude has been rightly described as ‘a feudalisation of love’. This solemn amatory ritual is felt to be part and parcel of the courtly life.” 6

With the advent of (initially courtly) women being elevated to the position of ‘Lord’ in intimate relationships, and with this general sentiment diffusing to the masses and across much of the world today, we are justified in talking of a gynocentric cultural complex that affects, among other things, relationships between men and women. Further, unless evidence of widespread gynocentric culture can be found prior to the Middle Ages, then  gynocentrism is precisely 800 years old. In order to determine if this thesis is valid we need to look further at what we mean by “gynocentrism”.

The term gynocentrism has been in circulation since the 1800’s, with the general definition being “focused on women; concerned with only women.” 7 From this definition we see that gynocentrism could refer to any female-centered practice, or to a single gynocentric act carried out by one individual. There is nothing inherently wrong with a gynocentric act (eg. celebrating Mother’s Day) , or for that matter an androcentric act (celebrating Father’s Day). However when a given act becomes instituted in the culture to the exclusion of other acts we are then dealing with a hegemonic custom — i.e. such is the relationship custom of elevating women to the position of men’s social, moral or spiritual superiors.

Author of Gynocentrism Theory Adam Kostakis has attempted to expand the definition of gynocentrism to refer to “male sacrifice for the benefit of women” and “the deference of men to women,” and he concludes; “Gynocentrism, whether it went by the name honor, nobility, chivalry, or feminism, its essence has gone unchanged. It remains a peculiarly male duty to help the women onto the lifeboats, while the men themselves face a certain and icy death.” 8

While we can agree with Kostakis’ descriptions of assumed male duty, the phrase gynocentric culture more accurately carries his intention than gynocentrism alone. Thus when used alone in the context of this website gynocentrism refers to part or all of gynocentric culture, which is defined here as any culture instituting rules for gender relationships that benefit females at the expense of males across a broad range of measures.

At the base of gynocentric culture lies the practice of enforced male sacrifice for the benefit of women. If we accept this definition we must look back and ask whether male sacrifices throughout history were always made for the sake women, or alternatively for the sake of some other primary goal? For instance, when men went to die in vast numbers in wars, was it for women, or was it rather for Man, King, God and Country? If the latter we cannot then claim that this was a result of some intentional gynocentric culture, at least not in the way I have defined it here. If the sacrifice isn’t intended directly for the benefit women, even if women were occasional beneficiaries of male sacrifice, then we are not dealing with gynocentric culture.

Male utility and disposability strictly “for the benefit of women” comes in strongly only after the advent of the 12th century gender revolution in Europe – a revolution that delivered us terms like gallantry, chivalry, chivalric love, courtesy, damsels, romance and so on. From that period onward gynocentric practices grew exponentially, culminating in the demands of today’s feminist movement. In sum, gynocentrism (ie. gynocentric culture) was a patchy phenomenon at best before the middle ages, after which it became ubiquitous.

With this in mind it makes little sense to talk of gynocentric culture starting with the industrial revolution a mere 200 years ago (or 100 or even 30 yrs ago), or of it being two million years old as some would argue. We are not only fighting two million years of genetic programming; our culturally constructed problem of gender inequity is much simpler to pinpoint and to potentially reverse. All we need do is look at the circumstances under which gynocentric culture first began to flourish and attempt to reverse those circumstances. Specifically, that means rejecting the illusions of romantic love (feudalised love), along with the practices of misandry, male shaming and servitude that ultimately support it.

La Querelle des Femmes, and advocacy for women

The Querelle des Femmes translates as the “quarrel about women” and amounts to what we might today call a gender-war. The querelle had its beginning in twelfth century Europe and finds its culmination in the feminist-driven ideology of today (though some authors claim, unconvincingly, that the querelle came to an end in the 1700s). The basic theme of the centuries-long quarrel revolved, and continues to revolve, around advocacy for the rights, power and status of women, and thus Querelle des Femmes serves as the originating title for gynocentric discourse.

If we consider the longevity of this revolution we might be inclined to agree with Barbarossaaa’s claim “that feminism is a perpetual advocacy machine for women”.

To place the above events into a coherent timeline, chivalric servitude toward women was elaborated and given patronage first under the reign of Eleanor of Aquitaine (1137-1152) and instituted culturally throughout Europe over the subsequent 200 year period. After becoming thus entrenched on European soil there arose the Querelle des Femmes which refers to the advocacy culture that arose for protecting, perpetuating and increasing female power in relation to men that continues, in an unbroken tradition, in the efforts of contemporary feminism.9

Writings from the Middle Ages forward are full of testaments about men attempting to adapt to the feudalisation of love and the serving of women, along with the emotional agony, shame and sometimes physical violence they suffered in the process. Gynocentric chivalry and the associated querelle have not received much elaboration in men’s studies courses to-date, but with the emergence of new manuscripts and quality English translations it may be profitable to begin blazing this trail.10


1. Oxford English Dictionary – Vers.4.0 (2009), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199563838
2. Oxford English Dictionary 2010
3. Three points elaborated during online conversation with Snir, October 2016
4. Modesta Pozzo, The Worth of Women: their Nobility and Superiority to Men
5. C.S. Lewis, Friendship, chapter in The Four Loves, HarperCollins, 1960
6. C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, Oxford University Press, 1936
7. Dictionary.com – Gynocentric
8. Adam Kostakis, Gynocentrism Theory – (Published online, 2011). Although Kostakis assumes gynocentrism has been around throughout recorded history, he singles out the Middle Ages for comment: “There is an enormous amount of continuity between the chivalric class code which arose in the Middle Ages and modern feminism… One could say that they are the same entity, which now exists in a more mature form – certainly, we are not dealing with two separate creatures.”
9. Joan Kelly, Early Feminist Theory and the Querelle des Femmes (1982), reprinted in Women, History and Theory, UCP (1984)
10. The New Male Studies Journal has published thoughtful articles touching on the history and influence of chivalry in the lives of males.

How to feign neoteny: an instruction manual for women


The following instruction video from the Fascinating Womanhood Movement teaches women how to feign neoteny to get their own way with husbands. (1.37 to 2.33):

The practice is elaborated in greater depth in the 1965 volume Fascinating Womanhood which gives instruction for women in feigning “childlikeness.” Click on the link below to read an excerpt:

Childlekeness teaching for women

Cosechando la Mirada Masculina


Todos sabemos sobre la mirada masculina y la resultante sexualización del cuerpo femenino. La acusación estándar es que nosotros los hombres estamos escaneando nuestro ambiente por mujeres pasivas para pervertir, un acto que reduce a las mujeres de seres humanos complejos a simples objetos sexuales para nuestro placer. La siguiente definición del Diccionario de Referencias de Oxford representa la visión usual de que la mirada masculina, o al menos la que promueven activamente las feministas:

Mirada Masculina

1. Una manea de tratar a los cuerpos de las mujeres para ser observados, lo cual es asociado por feministas con la masculinidad hegemónica, en la vida diaria en cada interacción social y en relación con su representación visual en los medios: [vea también cosificación].

Lo que se destaca de estas definiciones de la mirada masculina es la agencia de los hombres: los hombres “tratan” a los cuerpos de las mujeres, “observan”, los cuerpos de las mujeres, y instauran “heremonía” sobre los cuerpos de las mujeres – una cosa impensable que le quita a las mujeres agencia de acuerdo a la crítica de cine feminista que creó la expresión “la mirada masculina”1

Pero de ser así, las mujeres siempre son las víctimas pasivas de las miradas violadoras, ¿o están jugando una parte en  provocar a esas miradas en los hombres? ¿Podría ser que ellas son agentes provocadoras en un juego que inician y en gran medida controlan? Yo creo que la mayoría de la gente, al menos aquellos que no viven en negación, saben la respuesta a esa pregunta es un gran si.

Las horas y años gastados probándose ropas diferentes, y ensallando posturas o gestos de las manos en frente de un espejo – tocándose la cara, poniéndolas en sus caderas o en sus labios o ligeramente arriba de sus senos; o practicando gestos faciales – las sonrisas, los labios apretados, inclinar la cabeza, tocarse el pelo y las miradas, todo diseñado para cosechar la mirada de blancos hombres quienes no sospechan nada.

¿Podría ser que a través de un repertorio altamente cultivado de gestos y poses de mujeres poseen una agencia enorme y que los hombres sirven como blancos pasivos con poca agencia aparte de reacciones sin procesar?

Ya sea el caso de que primero necesitamos deshacernos del mito de que las mujeres son víctimas de este juego tan viejo, para lo cual voy a dar unas técnicas para cosechar la mirada masculina empleadas por las mujeres, una lista que puede fácilmente ser expandida al añadir sus propias observaciones sobre trucos de cosecha.

A continuación aquí hay algunas técnicas que las mujeres habitualmente usan para cosechar una reacción en movimiento, cada una envuelve a una mujer actuando y a veces agresivamente al ponerse en el rango de tus sentidos:

Giro y Giro

La mejor forma de describir esto es un giro del cuerpo en forma gentil de lado a lado, con frecuencia con las manos juntas en frente, para dar una imagen de exuberancia infantil como niñas pequeñas. A pesar de que esto parece ser un comportamiento apropiado para niñas de cinco años, el giro y giro no es algo para cosechar la mirada femenina – ella emplea esto para interrumpir el campo de la mirada masculina con un movimiento repentino, un gesto suficiente para ganar su atención y le permiten “escanear” su cuerpo.

El Bloqueo

Esto sucede cuando eres el blanco de una mujer quien quiere que tú te tomes tu tiempo para absorber su presencia. Ella va a pararse en una puerta, en medio del camino, o en un pasillo en una tienda a veces alludad por un carrito de compra el cual ella deja puesto estratégicamente en el pasillo. Si se hace bien, esto te fuerza a interactuar: “Disculpe yo moveré su carrito de modo que yo pueda pasar,” para lo cual ella responde “Oh, lo lamento,” mientras te muestra sus partes más atractivas – su vestido favorito, su cabello bien lavado, o la sonrisa por la cual ella fue famosa en el colegio.

El Asalto de Color

La práctica de usar colores que atraen la mirada es una técnica favorita, con el mensaje inequívoco de ¡VAS A MIRARME! Se fueron los colores pastel del año pasado, y entran los colores llamativos y directos diseñados para atraer la atención quien entra en el cuarto o cuando camina por la calle. Y no es sólo la ropa – la práctica se extiende al color del pelo, sombrero, , chal y bufanda se han vuelto igualmente llamativas, con las usuarias conformándose con nada menos que molestar a todos los ojos en el sector.

La Exclamación

La exclamación es usada en el momento en el cual en que un blanco masculino llega al alcance de su oído, y con frecuencia se usa en la forma de una pequeña muestra de sorpresa; “¡Oh, casi me desmallo!” declara una mujer al aire, o “Dios mío hoy hace calor” con la esperanza de que un total desconocido empiece a mirar en la dirección de la voz y, con suerte, siga con la conversación.

La exclamación también puede aparecer como un hablar en voz baja sobre algo en el momento preciso. Esta es una técnica favorita  y es normalmente usada en la forma de una pregunta o una declaración que necesite una respuesta, tal como cuando ella está cerca de la oreja del hombre correcto en un pasillo de una tienda y con frustración murmulla supuestamente para ella, “No puedo encontrar la lata de espagueti, ¿las habrán cambiado de lugar?” o “¡Espero que hoy tengan pan fresco!” de modo que el hombre que pasa por ahí escuche y se sienta motivado a responder.

Caminata de Mírame:

Caminar hermosamente, proyectando una imagen de autosuficiencia con una mirada de yo-no-necesito-un-hombre, la caminante ha dominado el arte de aparentar estar desinteresada en la atención de los demás, mientras hace una demostración física de brazos que se columpian, tacones que suenan fuerte, una vestimenta que atrae la atención y un mentón-en-el-aire que hace que los hombres la miren una segunda vez. Esta rutina generalmente hecha en un distrito de negocios donde ella asiduamente escanea las ventanas de las tiendas para capturar todas las miradas masculinas reflejadas que su caminata empoderada sueña capturar. Su habilidad para usar las ventanas de las tiendas para mirarse a si misma y las caras reflejadas de aquellos que la miran se ha convertido en un arte que le permite mirar a los costados y no caerse cuando tiene poca atención en el camino.

El Incremento de Volumen

Esta técnica cosechadora de mirada sucede cuando estás caminando hacia una mujer que sucede ser una de las chicas quienes desean que tu mirada se dirija a ellas como un láser de un rifle de francotirador, ella de repente sube el volumen de la conversación que está teniendo, o se ríe muy muy fuerte, con frecuencia causando la sorpresa de su amiga quien no ha visto el propósito de esto. Tan ridículo como esto aparente ser a su amiga, ella sin embargo ha tenido éxito en atraer esos ojos de miradas sucias incluso si un tipo que está simplemente caminando se sintió atraído hacia el ruido repentino.

El Accesorio

Las mujeres utilizan accesorios para llamar la atención – un perro, un bolso, un niño o lo que sea que esté a la mano. El bolso se puede balancear o revisarlo en forma tal que capture la atención de la persona más ciega en la habitación. De la misma forma, los niños pueden ser, consentidos o castigados justo cuando un hombre camina cerca, en ese momento la madre dice “Que ese hombre tan lindo no te vea comiendo dulces” o “No te pongas en el camino de ese hombre tan lindo o te vas a lastimar.”

Algunas mujeres declaran que la mejor forma de conocer a un hombre es comprar un perro y llevarlo a una caminata, donde vas a conocer a un hombre guapo ya quien está paseando a su perro o tal vez está caminando sólo. Si se hace bien, ella sabe que su perro va a seguir la tentación irresistible de interactuar con el perro del hombre, y tiene el bono que las correas podrían enredarse. En esta escena ella gana los ojos de él, y con suerte su conversación… ¿Se van a casar?


Las mujeres son particularmente adeptas en usar movimientos físicos para ganar la mirada masculina. Los muchos movimientos y las posturas de los brazos, la mano puesta en el lugar estratégico del pecho, del muslo, del estómago y las puntas de los dedos extendidas para tocar varias partes del cuerpo o de la cara – el mentón, los labios, el escote. O consideren peinar, mover, o hacer rulos con el pelo, y los movimientos delicados, las miradas de los ojos, todo diseñado para forzar una interacción por parte del cosechado.

El Inclinarse

Lo que Sheryl Sandberg no ha admitido es que las mujeres se han estado inclinando durante milenios – con su escote. Ellas hacen esto por las mismas razones por las que Sandberg declara – para obtener un aumento de sueldo, una promoción, más dinero, estatus y matrimonio. Tal vez lo que Sandberg entiende inconscientemente al usar esa expresión-inclinarse – el viejo truco de mostrarle los senos. ¿A qué otra cosa se refiere con “inclinarse”?

Sin embargo, no sólo sucede en la reunión de trabajo o en la entrevista de contratación con el oficial de Recursos Humanos. Igualmente sucede en el bar, en el gimnasio, en el concierto y en el Mall, lugares donde las mujeres puden obtener in aumento sin siquiera pedir uno, al menos no pedirlo en forma verbal. Todo lo que tiene que hacer es inclinarse para obtener la atención que ella quiere.


¿Notaste algo sobre estas técnicas? Son las mismas usadas por quienes trabajan en ventas, como las que usan los que venden productos en un Mall, quienes rebotan en una cama rebotadora, giran una pluma o bailan mientras el comprador inocente en su dirección sólo para ser asaltado por un show de colores y movimiento. Pero en lugar de vender un producto, la mujer que cosecha la mirada quiere que tú la desvistas con tu mirada, una señal de que las técnicas tienen poder sobre tí para que ella pueda obtener ganancias narcisistas o materiales.

La próxima vez que te encuentres en esa situación, intenta agarrar un poco de agencia verdadera para mirar hacia otro lado de la cosechadora y disfruta de la comedia ya que ella se enfurece de que tú te rehúses y ella va a intentar salvar su esfuerzo fallido con más fuerza, velocidad, y en una forma más obstruyente.

Verás, la verdadera falta de agencia aparece cuando los sentidos de un hombre son violado por una llegada de estímulos sensoriales, un bombardeo que llega de los planes egoístas de alguien sobre lo que tú deberías estar mirando.


[1] Laura Mulvey is credited with coining the phrase ‘The Male Gaze’ in her 1975 article Visual pleasure and narrative cinema.



¿Qué Le Pasó a la Caballerosidad?


Tengo una alerta de Google para la palabra caballerosidad, y no pasa un día en que no reciba varios artículos sobre ese tópico. Estos artículos aparecen ligeramente sesgados hacia el tema de “la caballerosidad está muerta en los hombres”, seguidos de un número razonable de otros que dicen que “la caballerosidad está viva y bien” – los últimos son porque hay algún hombre, en alguna parte, arriesgó su vida, sus extremidades o dinero para servir al bienestar inmediato de una mujer.

Estén seguros de que la caballerosidad mostrada por hombres individuales está en declive, y las mujeres, los hombres el gobierno y los medios de prensa denuncia esta devolución con una sola voz: Los hombres se están convirtiendo en cerdos egoístas. los MRAs y los MGTOW elijen sumariarlo en forma diferente: los hombres están cansados de ser explotados y han elegido remover el desinterés innecesario.

La caballerosidad está documentada en manuales de etiqueta de siglos pasados explicando cómo un hombre debe sacarse su sombrero en presencia de una mujer, tomar su mano, abrir puertas, comprarle regalos y ayudarla en una multitud de formas. El mensaje es que estos gestos de deferencia a la superioridad de las mujeres:

“Si ves a una dama a quien no conozcas, que esté sin atención y quien desee la ayuda de un hombre, ofrécele tus servicios inmediatamente. Hazlo con gran cortesía, quitándote su sombrero y suplicando por el honor de ayudarla.” [Gynocentric etiquette for men – 1847]

“En el curso familiar de una sociedad, un hombre bien criado va a ser conocido por la delicadeza y deferencia con la cual se comporta con las mujeres. Que un hombre merezca ser mirado como alguien muy deficiente en cuanto a respeto, quien tome ventaja física de algún miembro del sexo débil, o quien ofrezca algún desliz hacia ella. Las mujeres buscan con razón, la protección de un hombre. Es la providencia del marido proteger a su esposa de cualquier herida; del padre proteger a su hija; del hermano tiene el mismo deber hacia su hermana; y en general, cada hombre debería, en este sentido, ser el campeón y amar a cada mujer. No sólo él debería estar listo para proteger, sino que debe estar deseoso de complacer y estar dispuesto a sacrificar gran parte de su comodidad personal si al hacerlo él puede incrementar la comodidad de cualquier mujer que se encuentre en su compañía. Poniendo estos principios en práctica, un hombre bien criado, en su propia casa, va a ser amable y respetuoso de su comportamiento con cada mujer en su familia. Él no va a usar lenguaje soez incluso si es para expresar insatisfacción sobre la conducta de ellas. Durante la conversación, él se va a abstener de cualquier tipo de alusión que sonroje la modestia. Él va, tanto como pueda, ayudar al trabajo de ella con asistencia voluntaria y alegre. Él va a conceder a ellas cada pequeña ventaja que pueda ocurrir en la vida doméstica:- el asiento más cómodo, si hay una diferencia; él lugar más cómodo cerca de la fogata en invierno;  y cosas así.” [Gynocentric etiquette for men – 1847]

“Siempre debes de tener en cuenta el supuesto de que la superioridad social de la mujer yace en la raíz de estas reglas de conducta.” [Gynocentric etiquette for men – 1847]

Una razón para el declive de la caballerosidad masculina es que la recompensa se desvaneció. Las mujeres ya no reciprocan la caballerosidad vía gestos anticuados como cocinar, limpiar la casa, alabar y mostrar afecto, cosas que podrían haber ocurrido en la era de los comentarios que he mostrado. Hoy ni siquiera reciben el gracias… ¿alguien se pregunta el por qué los hombres ven a la caballerosidad como un mal trato? La comida, las flores, ser un esclavo en el trabajo, la deferencia es mejor gastada en uno mismo.

A pesar de que la preocupación sobre el declive de la caballerosidad, las mujeres parecen estar haciéndolo muy bien ellas solas: están bien provistas de bienes materiales, muestran cada vez más libertad corporal y orgullo por sus cuerpos y su entrada en la fuerza laboral y las carreras es algo sin precedente. La sociedad continúa consintiéndolas como siempre – o a veces más.

Lo que uno podría preguntarse sobre este hecho es que si la caballerosidad meramente da la apariencia de estar en declive ¿y si las mujeres la están recibiendo de otra fuente? Mi observación – obvia para muchos en este movimiento es que han logrado una nueva y rica fuente de caballerosidad.

Del Esposo Sam al Tío Sam

Este es el titular de un capítulo del libro del Dr Warren Farrell, el Mito del Poder Masculino, donde él describe como los hombres se han esforzado tradicionalmente para que el gobierno, centrado en las mujeres, actúe como agentes proxy en la esfera política. Este comportamiento, explica Farrell, está basado en la tradición caballerosa de que los hombres sirvan a las necesidades de las mujeres. El siguiente pasaje del libro de Farrell, explica este fenómeno:

“¿Acaso el hecho de que la mayoría de los legisladores sean hombres prueba de que los hombres están a cargo y pueden elegir si y cuando proteger los intereses de las mujeres? En teoría, si. Pero hablando en la práctica del sistema legal americano no puede ser separado del votante. Y en las elecciones presidenciales de 1992, el 54 por ciento de los votantes eran mujeres, el 46 por ciento eran hombres. (las mujeres que votan superan a los hombres por más de 7 millones). En general, un legislador es para un votante lo que un chofer es para un jefe – ambos dan la apariencia de estar a cargo pero ambos pueden ser despedidos si no van a donde se les dice. Cuando los legisladores no dan la apariencia de proteger a las mujeres, es casi siempre porque las mujeres difieren en cuanto a lo que constituye protección. (Por ejemplo, las mujeres votaron casi igualmente por Republicanos y Demócratas durante la combinación de las cuatro elecciones previas a Clinton).”

El Gobierno como Esposo Substituto hico para las mujeres lo que los sindicatos aún no han logrado para los hombres. Y los hombres pagan el precio por los sindicatos; los contribuyentes pagan el precio por el feminismo. El feminismo y el gobierno pronto se convertirán en sindicatos pagados para las mujeres. Los partidos políticos se han convertido en dos padres en una batalla por la custodia, cada uno compitiendo por el amor de su hija al prometerle hacer más cosas por ella. ¿Qué tan destructivo es esto para las mujeres? Hemos restringido a los humanos de darle comida “gratis” a los delfines y osos porque sabemos que semejante alimentación los haría dependientes y los llevaría a su extinción. Pero cuando se trata de nuestra propia especia, tenemos dificultad al ver la conexión entre gentileza al corto plazo y crueldad al largo plazo: le damos dinero a las mujeres para que tengan más niños, haciéndolas más dependientes con cada niño y las desinsentivamos para que desarrollen las herramientas para que se mantengan solas. La verdadera discriminación contra las mujeres es “comida gratis”.

Irónicamente, cuando los partidos políticos o padres compiten por el amor de las mujeres al competir por darles cariño, el resultado no es gratitud sino que se crean con derecho a más. Y el resultado no va a ser gratitud, porque el partido político, al igual que el padre necesitado se vuelve inconscientemente dependiente de mantener a la mujer dependiente. Lo cual convierte a la mujer en “el otro” – la persona al a cual le dan, no participación igualitaria. En el proceso, falla en hacer el trabajo de cada padre y cada partido político – criar a un adulto y no mantener a una niña.

Pero aquí está el problema. Cuando una niña que se cree con derecho a privilegios tiene la mayoría de los votos, el problema ya no es si hay un patriarcado o un matriarcado – tenemos un victimarcado. Y las mujeres-como-niñas quienes genuinamente se sienten como víctimas porque nunca aprenden a obtener todo por sí mismas aprenden a esperar que se los den. Bueno, ella aprende a obtenerlo por ella misma al decir “es el derecho de una mujer” – pero ella no siente la maestría que se genera de una vida de hacer las cosas por sí sola. E incluso cuando una cuota incluye a ella en el proceso de tomar una decisión, ella sigue estando enojada con el “gobierno dominado por hombres” porque ella siente que la condescendencia de haberle dado “igualdad” y la contradicción de que le dieron igualdad. Ella es todavía “el otro”. Entonces, con la mayoría de los votos, ella está controlando el sistema y al mismo tiempo está enojada con el sistema”. [The Myth of Male Power]

¿Necesitamos todavía más evidencia de “qué le pasó a la caballerosidad”? No sólo tenemos políticos quienes se han apoderado de la satisfacción caballerosa de las damas, parece ser que la izquierda y también la derecha política están compitiendo por el privilegio de servirlas. Esto lo puedo entender…¿ de qué otra forma los elijen?


John Stuart Mill, un campeón del feminismo, motivó a cambiar la responsabilidad de la caballerosidad de las manos de cada hombre hacia las manos del marco legislativo del gobierno, argumentando que la caballerosidad no es siempre confiable y que debe dar cabida a algo más confiable, protección forzada por el estado y benevolencia hacia las mujeres. Él escribe:

“Desde la combinación de dos tipos de influencia moral ejercida por mujeres, nació el espíritu de la caballerosidad: la peculiaridad que está apuntada a los más estándares de características de guerra con la cultivación de unas virtudes totalmente diferentes – las de gentileza, generosidad y abnegación motivada por uno mismo hacia las clases no militares e indefensas generalmente, y en especial sumisión y adoración dirigida hacia las mujeres: quienes fueron distinguidas de las otras clases indefensas por las altas recompensas las cuales tenían en su poder voluntariamente para ungir en aquellos quienes se han esforzado para ganar sus favores, en lugar de exhortar su impotencia…

Los fundamentos de esta vida moral en los tiempos modernos debe ser la justicia y la prudencia; el respeto a los derechos de todos y la habilidad de cada uno para cuidar de si mismo. La caballerosidad se fue sin registros legales para todas las formas del mal en la cual reinó sin castigo a través de la sociedad; sólo incentivó a unos cuantos a tomar la preferencia a lo malo, al dirigirlo le dio los instrumentos de alabanza y admiración. pero la dependencia real de la moralidad siempre debe estar en las sanciones penales – su poder para disuadir del mal. La seguridad de la sociedad no puede descansar solamente en rendir honor a lo bueno, un motivo comparativamente débil en todos, salvo unos cuantos y en los cuales muchos no operan en los absoluto. [J. S. Mill: The Subjection of Women – 1869]

Ernest B Bax confirma que el comportamiento caballeroso de la izquierda y la derecha política eran en realidad, por sugerencia de Mill, muy encaminadas para el año 1907:

“Todos los partidos, todo tipo de condiciones de políticos, desde los que están a la moda y son conservadores occidentales, los filántropos hasta los clubes radicales de hombres trabajadores, parecen (o parecían hasta hace poco) que se han convertido en una conclusión unánime en un punto – para engañar que el sexo femenino está sufriendo bajo el peso de la opresión masculina.” [Essays: New & Old (1907), pp.108-119]

El feminismo recibe su fuerza de la caballerosidad, pero en lugar de solicitar caballerocidad de los hombres en la forma tradicional e interpersonal ha aprendido a obtenerla únicamente del gobierno – al mantener al gobierno secuestrado gracias a la sufragistas ganando el voto para las mujeres ginocéntricas.

En lugar de los hombres cediendo sus asientos en los buses, el gobierno ahora provee asientos en asambleas legislativas y en mesas de directorio vía cuotas. En lugar de los hombres abriendo puertas de carros para las mujeres, el gobierno le abre las puertas a las mujeres en las universidades y en los trabajos a través de la acción afirmativa. En lugar de que los hombres sean los únicos protectores de las mujeres en cuanto a violencia, el gobierno ahora las protege con un ejército de policías quienes reciben entrenamiento especial para servir a las acusaciones de las mujeres (o incluso y por sobre crímenes serios). En lugar de que los hombres provean los gastos para el día a día, el gobierno ahora provee beneficios sociales y compensaciones por la “brecha salarial”. Etc…. el gobierno es el esposo substituto.

Todo esto complementa la presión del feminismo a la izquierda y la derecha hacia un liderazgo caballeroso. La única diferencia entre los dos lados de la política es que la izquierda es más psicópata en su entrega de las reglas caballerosas – y la derecha es más heroica en su entrega de la caballerosidad. El mismo ginocentrismo, pero caballero diferente.






Firmando el Consejo de la Casa Blanca para Mujeres y Niñas

La caballerosidad ginocéntrica fue una idea desequilibrada desde el principio. Los hombres ahora se están alejando de esa costumbre, y podemos añorar por la época en la cual ambos lados de la política hagan lo mismo. Tal vez cuando el creciente ejercito de herbívoros genere un colapso en los ingresos entonces ellas verán la luz. Hasta entonces, no les demos un pase a las feministas en su declaración de que ellas no quieren caballerosidad… ellas simplemente encontraron una nueva fuente.



Línea de Tiempo de la Cultura Ginocéntrica

La siguiente línea de tiempo ilustra detalladamente el nacimiento de la cultura ginocéntrica junto con los eventos históricos significativos que aseguraron su supervivencia. Antes del año 1200 d.C., simplemente no existía una cultura ginocéntrica ampliamente extendida, a pesar de la evidencia que existe de actos y eventos ginocéntricos aislados. Fue tan sólo hasta la Edad Media que el ginocentrismo desarrolló una complejidad cultural y se volvió una norma cultural ubicua y duradera.


1102 d.C.: El meme del Ginocentrismo es introducido por primera vez

Guillermo IX, Duque de Aquitania, el señor feudal más poderoso de Francia, escribió los primeros poemas de trovador y es ampliamente considerado como el primer trovador. Separándose de la tradición de luchar guerras en nombre del hombre, del rey, de Dios y del país, se dice que Guillermo tenía la imagen de su señora pintada en su escudo, a quien él llamaba midons (mi Señor) diciendo que “era su deseo llevarla en batalla, así como ella lo había cargado a él en la cama.” (1)

1168 – 1198 d.C.: El meme del Ginocentrismo se elabora, recibe patrocinio imperial

El meme del ginocentrismo se populariza aún más y recibe patrocinio de la nieta de Guillermo, la Reina Eleonor de Aquitania, y de la hija de ésta, Marie (2). En la corte de Eleonor, en Poitiers, ella y Marie terminaron el trabajo de adornar el código militar cristiano de caballería con un código de amantes románticos; con ello pusieron a la mujer en el centro de la vida cortesana, y al amor en el trono de Dios mismo – y al hacerlo, cambiaron la cara de la caballería para siempre. Los eventos claves son:

– 1170 d.C.: Eleonor y Marie establecieron las Cortes de Amor formales, presididas por ellas mismas y un jurado de 60 mujeres de la nobleza, quienes investigaban y pasaban sentencias en disputas de amor de acuerdo al nuevo código que gobernaba las relaciones entre géneros.

– 1180 d.C.: Marie encomienda a Chrétien de Troyes para que éste escriba Lancelot, El Caballero de la Carreta, una historia de amor sobre Lancelot y Guinevere en la que se elaboraba la naturaleza de la caballerosidad ginocéntrica. Chrétien de Troyes abandonó este proyecto antes de completarlo porque se oponía a la aprobación implícita que recibía la relación adúltera entre Lancelot Y Guinevere que Marie le había mandado escribir. Pero la aprobación de la leyenda era irresistible – poetas posteriores completaron la historia en representación de Chrétien, quien también escribió otros romances famosos, incluyendo Eric y Enide.

– 1188 d.C.: Marie ordena a su capellán Andreas Capellanus escribir El Arte del Amor Cortesano. Esta guía de los códigos caballerescos de amor romántico es un documento que podría pasar como contemporáneo en casi todos los aspectos, excepto por las conjeturas y estructuras de clase anticuadas. Muchos de los consejos en el “libro de texto” de Andreas venían evidentemente de las mujeres que habían mandado realizar el escrito (3).

1180 – 1380 d.C.: La cultura ginocéntrica se expande por Europa

En doscientos años, la cultura ginocéntrica salió de Francia para instituirse en todas las principales cortes de Europa, y de ahí llegó a capturar la imaginación de hombres, mujeres y niños de todas las clases sociales. De acuerdo a Jennifer Wollock (4), la continua popularidad de las historias de amor caballerescas también se confirma por los contenidos de las bibliotecas de mujeres de la Edad Media tardía, literatura que tenía un substancial público femenino, incluyendo a las madres que les leían a sus hijas. Aparte del creciente acceso a la literatura, los valores de la cultura ginocéntrica se difundieron a través de la interacción diaria entre la gente en la que creaban, compartían y/o intercambiaban la información y las ideas.

1386 d.C.: Se forma el concepto Ginocéntrico de “caballero”

Acuñado en los años de 1200, la expresión “Hombre Gentil [Gentil man en inglés]” pronto se volvió sinónimo de caballería. De acuerdo al Diccionario Oxford la palabra gentleman llegó a referirse a “un hombre con instintos caballerescos y buenos sentimientos” en 1386. Por lo tanto, gentleman implica un comportamiento caballeresco y sirve a su vez como su sinónimo; un significado que perdura hasta nuestros días.

1400 d.C.: El comienzo de la Querelle des Femmes

La Querelle des Femmes o la “controversia femenina” técnicamente tuvo su comienzo en 1230 d.C. con la publicación del Romance de la Rosa. Sin embargo, fue la autora francoitaliana Cristina de Pizán quien en 1400 d.C. llevó la discusión prevalente sobre las mujeres a un debate que continúa resonando en la ideología feminista de hoy en día (aunque algunos autores afirman, de manera poco convincente, que la querelle llegó a su fin en los años de 1700). El tema básico de esta controversia de siglos giraba, y continúa haciéndolo, alrededor de la defensa de los derechos, del poder y del estatus de las mujeres.

Siglo 21: El Ginocentrismo continua

La cultura del ginocentrismo, que ya cumple 800 años, continúa gracias a la ayuda de los tradicionalistas, ansiosos de preservar las costumbres, las maneras, los tabúes, las expectativas y las instituciones ginocéntricas, con las cuales tienen tanta familiaridad; y también con la ayuda de feministas que continúan encontrando nuevas y a menudo novedosas maneras de incrementar el poder de las mujeres con la ayuda de la caballerosidad. El movimiento feminista moderno ha rechazado algunas costumbres caballerescas tales como abrirle la puerta del carro a una mujer, o cederle el puesto en el bus; sin embargo, continúan apoyándose en “el espíritu de la caballerosidad” para obtener nuevos privilegios para las mujeres: abrir la puerta de los carros se transformó en abrir la puerta en universidades o empleos a través de la discriminación positiva; y ceder el asiento en buses se transformó en ceder los asientos en juntas directivas y en partidos políticos a través de cuotas. A pesar de las diversas metas, el ginocentrismo contemporáneo sigue siendo un proyecto para mantener e incrementar el poder de las mujeres con la ayuda de la caballerosidad.


[1] Maurice Keen, Chivalry, Yale University Press, 1984. [Nota: 1102 d.C. es la fecha atribuida a la escritura de los primeros poemas de Guillermo].

[2] Las fechas 1168 – 1198 cubren el periodo que empieza con la época de Eleonor y Marie en Poitiers hasta la fecha de la muerte de Marie en 1198.

[3] Jeremy Catto, Chivalry: The Path of Love, Harper Collins, 1994.

[4] Jennifer G. Wollock, Rethinking Chivalry and Courtly Love, Praeger, 2011.

The Normalisation Of Gynocentrism

By Peter Ryan


Civilisation is based on the capacity of human beings to control and manage their instinctual and emotional responses and behave in an intelligent manner. The degree to which that capacity is eroded by lack of self-awareness, lack of cultural wisdom, lack of discipline, fatherlessness and superresponses to superstimuli, is the degree to which civilisation will decline, regress and then implode.

This ancient understanding that natural impulses can be destructive when taken to extremes, was known thousands of years ago. As discussed in Paul Elam and Peter Wright’s article, “Slaying the dragon”,1 this understanding was a major foundational element of many religions and is addressed in cultural mythology, such as the seven deadly sins of Christianity and the story of Odysseus resisting the Sirens call. This ancient wisdom was recognised as key not just to the well-being of individuals, but also to the survival of civilisations over history.

It is important to note that fathers have played a major role in teaching children to postpone gratification and regulate their instinctual and emotional impulses, as we have seen from Dr. Warren Farrell’s research2into the boy crisis. Unsurprisingly and predictably, fatherlessness has been one of the main factors driving the decline of Western civilisation.

There is a distinction between pathological behaviour and instinct. Just because a behaviour is driven by instinct, does not then make the behaviour healthy or biologically optimal to Darwinian fitness. Overeating is driven by instinct and can kill you before you reproduce (and even prevent you from finding a mate in the first place). There is also a distinction between gynocentrism and human instincts. Gynocentrism is not itself an instinct but rather a product of human instinct, emotional impulses and cultural conditioning. Gynocentrism is a set of complex and pathological behaviours that arise from a superresponse to superstimuli associated with sex, neoteny, the parental brain and pair bonding. See the article, “Chasing the dragon”3 for more information.

Many animals and especially human beings, have a capacity to regulate and control their behavioural responses to instinctual and emotional impulses that come from the lower areas of the brain. We have a well developed prefrontal cortex and other areas of the cerebral cortex, that have been shown in neuroscientific research4 to keep our behavioural responses to instincts in check. Whilst we may have no control over feeling our primal urges, we do have control over whether we decide to act on them and base decisions on them. We may experience anger, fear and sexual attraction, but we can control whether or not we act on our instincts and impulses. It is a scientific fact we have the capacity to control our behaviour and override our instinctual impulses. It is also the reason why we have a legal system: we recognise people have self-control over their decisions and actions.

People go on hunger strikes and die from it, despite having a hunger instinct and survival instinct. There are numerous other examples of people overriding their survival instinct. Extreme sports, stunts from escape artists and countless acts of bravery in war being such examples. There are numerous examples of people overriding their sexual instincts too. There are heterosexual men that remain celibate their entire lives in the clergy on purpose. There are even in this hypersexualised culture, sizeable communities of people that still practice sexual abstinence before marriage. We have enormous control over our behaviour. People do not see attractive people and then jump their bones and immediately have sex with them in public (we call that rape by the way, which is a crime)!

We have self-control and it is considerable in its power. It is worth considering that in the context of gynocentrism and the underlying superresponse to superstimuli. Whilst the superresponse leading to gynocentrism may indeed be strong, so is our ability to regulate our own behaviour. In fact our ability to control our own behaviour, can be that extreme it can actually kill us. It is also the case that through self-discipline, training and neuroplasticity, we can actually strengthen our neurological capacity to regulate our behaviour even further. Fathers play a key role in developing that neurological capacity in children, through teaching them to postpone gratification. We certainly have the capability to overcome gynocentrism.

The literal interpretation of free will might be an illusion, but self-control does exist and we have parts of the brain dedicated to exercising self-control. The fact that neurological process of self-control may in part lie beyond our conscious awareness, does not negate the fact we can and do regulate our behaviour and suppress our instincts and emotional impulses very often. It is what makes Homo sapiens, “sapien” or wise. Our ability to postpone gratification of our instincts and impulses and control when, where and even if we choose to satisfy them, is one of the major traits responsible for allowing our species to do what no other animal on this planet has done- create civilisation.

The assumption (which is precisely what it is), that gynocentrism is some insurmountable and hardwired instinct and behaviour we are slaves to, is complete and utter nonsense. That is not to say gynocentrism is not difficult to overcome or that it is not a powerful force within society. But it is not an omnipotent force either. It does not matter how many times it is said, there will still be some people that will call you a denier of biology if you dare to make the claim gynocentrism is not an immutable part of human behaviour. All of human behaviour is biological in part. Not just gynocentrism. Stating that gynocentrism is biological, certainly does not then automatically mean that it is immutable and insurmountable.

Gynocentrism is a pathological set of behaviours driven by instincts and emotional impulses, just like overeating and obesity is driven by the hunger instinct. It does not automatically follow that the instincts and emotional processes that are involved in gynocentrism, will invariably and always produce gynocentrism. Just like it does not always follow that the hunger instinct will lead to overeating and obesity, or that the sexual instinct will lead to rape.

Gynocentrism is merely one of many manifestations of the sexual instinct, desire to pair bond, our emotional response to neoteny and our parental brain. The same general emotional response to neoteny drives millions of people daily to dog videos on YouTube. The same parental brain is active when raising children. The reason why gynocentrism is so common in society, is because unlike obesity and other addictive and pathological behaviours like smoking, we do not shame people for it or discourage it or teach people about the harms it will cause. People understand the risks of overeating, obesity and smoking and people are discouraged from doing it by wider society (with the exception of the fat acceptance people). People go to jail if they indiscriminately act on their sexual instincts.

We normalise gynocentrism and actually encourage it. Imagine if we normalised and encouraged smoking again? Gynocentrism is common because we normalise it in the culture. The culture at large reinforces and conditions us from a very early age, to train our instincts and emotional responses to produce gynocentric behaviour. Contrary to the opinion of some armchair evolutionary biologists, gynocentrism does not enhance the capacity of the species to perpetuate itself. Exhibiting indiscriminate deference to addressing the needs and wants of women and girls above everything else (the definition of gynocentrism), actually causes the complete opposite. It leads to extinction.

It is not really hard to imagine how lopsided and imbalanced priorities could lead to dysfunctional and suboptimal outcomes in a complex system like society. The only reason why gynocentrism has not yet caused mass calamity, is because gynocentrism like obesity was kept at bay for most of human history from getting too big of a problem. Thanks to the imperative and focus we had to maintain on our survival as a community and as individuals and the limited means of communication over most of history, conditions simply did not permit gynocentrism to grow to a point where it threatened the survival of society. Only fairly recently over the last few centuries and particularly over the last 50 years, has that changed and these changes have allowed gynocentrism to mushroom.

Once survival became less of an issue and safety, prosperity, nutrition and human health improved by many orders of magnitude and society became mechanised and women gained control over their fertility, the constraints on gynocentrism growing beyond a certain threshold were removed and societal focus began to shift more and more from survival to a gynocentric lens.

Combined with these changes were communication technologies that allowed superstimuli to have an unprecedented mass effect on the population. The printing press, television, computers, smartphones, the internet and so forth, have allowed superstimuli to have much greater effects on conditioning human behaviour and the psychological development of children than ever before. Marketing in particular has made multibillion dollar industries out of exploiting superstimuli.

As a result of these changes, gynocentrism has rapidly grown over the last few centuries and particularly the last 50 years. We now have runaway gynocentrism. Eventually like a runaway train approaching a cliff, runaway gynocentrism will destroy civilisation if society does not find the brakes in time. We have in my estimation about 20 years before we reach that cliff and society runs off the rails into the abyss. It is now a race against the clock to wake as many people up from their hypnotic daze as we can.

We can see right now the fertility rates plummeting in every developed nation, thanks to constantly pandering to the needs and wants of women and girls. Social scientists are calling it the “demographic winter”.5 Pandering to the princess culture and female entitlement mentality (as Australian columnist Miranda Devine calls it),6 does not produce offspring.

Societies that succumb to runaway gynocentrism die out. Of course there are also long term consequences building from decades of neglect of boys needs in the education system and the epidemic of fatherlessness, that will threaten the social cohesion and economic prosperity of a number of developed nations in the coming decades. Not only will gynocentric societies shrink and then die out, they will descend into poverty, crime and civil unrest before they disappear.

Gynocentrism is widespread because we consider it to be normal and the culture reinforces it as a good thing. Imagine how much more common obesity or gambling addiction would be if the culture normalised and encouraged overeating and gambling? Imagine how much more common overeating and obesity and gambling and gambling addiction would be if you were encouraged to overeat and gamble from birth? Why do we consider gynocentrism to be normal? There are ten reasons or causes for this:

The Influence Of Women

Part of the reason gynocentrism is normal, is because it is encouraged by women. A casino does not want to discourage you from gambling your life savings. Women generally speaking, do not want to discourage men from getting married despite being fully aware of the biased divorce and family court process. There is no incentive for women to discourage men from gynocentrism and every incentive to do the complete opposite – and they do.

The difference between gynocentrism and the casino example, is that women constitute half of society and also raise you from birth and casino’s do not. The food industry as powerful as they are, are not half of the population and are not your mother. When you consider the role of women in men’s lives as mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends and the fact women generally are part of the most important and intimate relationships men have in their lives, it is not difficult to see how gynocentrism can be spread and become normalised in society if women promote it.

When women constitute the voting majority and control the majority of consumer spending, it is not hard to see how gynocentrism can become mainstream in the economy and in politics. That is especially true when women exercise an in-group bias, which research studies7 report is the case. On top of those realities is the fact men can and do white knight for female attention and approval. The enforcement of women’s desires on the rest of society, through female control over legions of male simps, politicians and corporations, cannot be overlooked in normalising gynocentrism in the culture.

The Change In Family Structure

The change in family structure over the last fifty years, has also played a major role in the normalisation of gynocentrism. We learn the gynocentric social mode of behaviour to a significant degree from our childhood upbringing in the household. When boys and girls are raised to adopt and expect male chivalry, then it is likely that behaviour will be exhibited by them when they get older. When boys and girls are raised with the message it is never okay to hit a woman, but never told the message it is never okay to hit a man, they internalise that double standard.

Over the last fifty years there has been dramatic changes in family structure. Many children are now being raised in fatherless homes from birth, or have been alienated from their fathers through divorce and family court. The lack of an adult male influence in the home combined with a lack of men in the education system, exacerbates gynocentric double standards being internalised in children and future generations. We also know the important role fathers play in teaching boys and girls to regulate their emotional and instinctual impulses, through teaching them to postpone gratification. We are now starting to see the impact of fathers being removed from the family, in the declining social behaviour of wider society.

We now have groups of young people and political movements fuelled entirely on emotional impulse and the abandonment of reason and evidence (SJW’s, university campus feminists, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the women’s marches etc being examples). We are living in a post factual world, where what feels good is more important than what is true. This is what happens in a fatherless society and it will eventually lead to societal collapse as it gets worse.

The Prosperity Of Modern Civilisation

A subtle reason for why we consider gynocentrism to be normal, is because the prosperity of modern civilisation cushions society from the consequences of it in the short term. Our current debt based monetary system and welfare state, combined with major advances in technology, allows society to pass on the costs of ignoring major social problems onto future generations. It takes years, decades and in some cases centuries, before the severe and long-lasting consequences

of gynocentrism hit individuals and society. So society does not learn very easily to do draw a link between gynocentric behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour.

You do not immediately feel the consequences of divorce and family court when you marry a female psychopath. Economies do not feel the burden straight away of large numbers of unemployed men arising from decades of inaction on addressing the boy crisis in education. Societies do not feel the consequences of fatherlessness straight away either or the long-term consequences of social witch-hunts like metoo#. Universities do not immediately feel the financial consequences of lawsuits against them from men falsely accused of rape, resulting from university policies enacted from the Dear Colleague letter.

Virtue Signalling

Gynocentrism is also normalised because on the surface it appears to be good behaviour, feels good and is therefore encouraged by the culture. However when considered with more thoughtful and detailed examination, it can be seen that this is not the case. White knighting appears to be a noble act on the surface, but not when we look into the details of what is going on. Human beings are prone to surface thinking, simple heuristic thinking and emotional bias. Marketing is so successful because it takes full advantage of these biases and cognitive shortcuts human perception employs to make sense of the world (see the elaboration likelihood model8 for more info and check out the central versus peripheral route to persuasion). What may look and feel good and righteous on the surface, is not always the case.

The Proliferation Of Gynocentric Superstimuli And Mass Communication

Of course it is also predictable that gynocentrism will be normalised when our environment is swamped with superstimuli, that trains our brains through conditioning over many years to operate in a gynocentric mode. This consistent exposure has long term effects on the brain through neuroplasticity.

When gynocentric superstimuli is all you are exposed to every waking hour from birth until death and there is so much social pressure on you to conform to gynocentric social norms, it is predictable gynocentrism will be normalised in the society in question. We have a plethora of laws against broadcasting violent ads, shows and movies and against promoting gambling and yet nothing like that for gynocentrism. When you combine gynocentric superstimuli with modern communication in the form of the internet, television, computers and smartphones, you have the perfect delivery system to condition society and normalise gynocentric behaviour.

The Gynocentric Mainstream Media

Following on from the previous section, the mainstream media plays a key role in normalising gynocentrism. The gynocentric vomit coming out daily from major news outlets is constant. We have articles titled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”9 from the Washington Post and “The End Of Men”10 from the Atlantic. Imagine for a moment if we substituted men with Jews in such articles. Such material would not look out of place in Nazi propaganda. Men are being dehumanised by the media and the media are spreading outrageous bigotry that would never be tolerated if the sexes were reversed.

The media has shown time and time again, they are pushing a gynocentric and female supremacist narrative onto society. They have ceased being news outlets and now essentially spread feminist and gynocentric man hating propaganda. The media does shape the attitudes and beliefs of society and also shapes politics and propaganda does work as we have seen from numerous examples throughout history.

We are fortunate now to have alternative media finally rising up against this hatred of men, to challenge it directly. AVFM is one example of this. However the mainstream media has had a multidecade headstart on the alternative media to shape society and still has considerable influence, despite their falling subscriptions and viewers.


There is a reductionist bent in society to not look at the bigger picture. We often fail to see the connection between things and how things are interrelated in society. There is a tendency to assign responsibility or consequence to one thing, person or cause. This feeds not just into normalising gynocentrism, but into letting other problems in society grow too. Society is a system and systems theory would help enormously in understanding and correctly dealing with societal problems, particularly social problems.

Taking a holistic and systems approach to understanding the world, can be far more effective than perceiving the world solely through a reductionist lens. Take school shootings for example. We could prevent such tragedies from occurring if we bothered take a wholistic systems based perspective on the problem. Instead of blaming it all on toxic masculinity, how about we look at fatherlessness and mental health. As society becomes more and more connected, taking a wholistic systems based approach to addressing social problems is going to be more and more relevant.

When we examine the behaviour of men and women in society, it is often solely discussed and framed along gynocentric lines by the media and by the culture. We look at men’s behaviour toward women in isolation from women. We do not even consider women are agents in society and we fail to see how the behaviour of men and women toward the opposite sex, feedback on each other. The feminist narrative on domestic violence is one such example of this.

Domestic violence is often reciprocal in nature11 and yet we do not hear on the reciprocal nature of domestic violence. When we hear about men’s violence toward women only, its causes are framed along the lines of power and control by the feminist Duluth model. No other cause or factor is apparently at play in contributing to men’s violence. The role of alcohol, substance abuse, poverty, mental illness and abuse during childhood, is all overlooked and ignored.

When society fosters a reductionist perspective on looking at the world and does not consider a wholistic or systems perspective, it encourages gynocentrism to grow and spread. Gynocentrism is by its nature reductionist. Having a one-dimensional perspective of relating everything solely to how they impact women and girls, is much easier to spread and normalise in a society that is highly politically polarised and has a general reductionist mindset to looking at the world that is encouraged by ideologues in the media and academia.

Even in biology and the sciences, we can see how reductionism holds back progress in understanding the natural world. Systems biology12 is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field at the forefront of life science research, that aims to go beyond a reductionist perspective, correct this limitation in scientific knowledge and develop a more accurate wholistic systems understanding of biology.

Biology is complex and is composed of multiple systems at multiple levels, from cell signalling pathways all the way up to entire ecosystems. When we examine what is required for evolutionary success and for genes to be successfully passed on from one generation to the next, it is not as simple as saying it is all about reproductive success. Reproduction is essential, but so is survival. An organism must survive to reproduce and its offspring must survive to successfully mate, otherwise it would be as if the offspring were never produced in the first place.

Reproducing once may not be sufficient either and an organism may need to survive long enough to mate multiple times, to ensure they produce enough offspring that survive to sexual maturity and pass on the genes. An organism must develop a strategy in investing energy, resources and time in survival versus reproduction, that is optimised to their environment and biology, to guarantee evolutionary success.

Evolutionary success is far more complex than simply just reproducing. If that were not the case and reproduction was really all that mattered, then the only life that would have evolved on Earth would have been asexual microbial life. There are selective advantages for species that reproduce more slowly, but have a more complex biology that can better adapt to, tolerate, manipulate and extract resources from the local environment. These selective advantages are partly what gave rise to the proliferation of multicellular life.13

Think for a moment about the thousands of lineages that have continued their existence today, because of the civilisation and technological advances men have created and been responsible for. Think of the billions of people alive today because of the intrinsic value men have provided to society. There are entire lineages that would have been extinguished long ago and billions of people that would not have been born, without the intrinsic value men have provided in creating the advanced civilisation we enjoy and modern technology.

Simply reproducing, especially for a slowly reproducing species like Humans, is simply not enough to ensure evolutionary success. That is why men have been sexually and naturally selected, to develop traits to enable them to provide, protect, discover, explore, invent, build, maintain, repair and fight for society. It is not as simple as saying one man can reproduce with ten women, therefore men are disposable. Biology is far more complex than that.

Notice no one seems to consider how one man can change the world and lead to an extra couple of hundred million people existing and passing on their genes. Think of the impact a handful of men in society have had on civilisation over the last two centuries and by extension the evolutionary success of the species. Think of how many less people there would be without electricity, machinery, antibiotics, modern medicine and modern agriculture that men were mostly responsible for. How many family genetic lineages have continued existing because of these technological advances by men and have avoided termination as a result?

Successfully passing on the genes is not solely about sexual intercourse. Biology is more complex than that. Many other things have to occur before and after sexual intercourse, to ensure genes are passed on successfully. The value men bring to the survival of the community and to society is unique. Despite what feminists claim, women really cannot do everything a man can do or just as well (Women are not inferior. Men and women just have different strengths.).

Men remain the majority of our leading scientists, thinkers, inventors, political and business thinkers etc, despite all of the feminist social engineering to artificially lift women up. Human adult males are also not immediately replaceable either, especially talented and gifted men. It takes roughly 18 years before they reach physical maturity (25 years if we are talking about the brain) and a great deal of parental investment compared to other animals.

Our failure to recognise that treating men as disposable is to treat civilisation as disposable, will eventually lead to the implosion of civilisation. Even if we consider men as machines, we all recognise what happens when you do not look after your car and do not change the oil. Either we unlearn the cultural belief men are disposable, or we can watch society start falling apart. Adopting a wholistic systems perspective and going beyond a simple reductionist mode of thinking, would help us unlearn the erroneous cultural belief men are disposable.

Gynocentric Authority, Institutions And Herd Mentality

Much of the influence in what shapes social behaviour comes from the top of society and from authorities like the government and institutions like university. Gynocentrism has been normalised in part because we have practiced it for centuries and our key institutions, leaders, celebrities and elite practice it, endorse it and impose it on the rest of us. We even enshrine gynocentrism into law.

There have been a number of psychological studies since WW2 showing how easily people blindly follow authority and rules (the infamous Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment14 being one such example) and how powerful institutional environments and rules are in shaping group and individual behaviour (that partly explains a lot about how Nazism came to power and how millions of people were exterminated without anyone speaking out against it).

The power of the herd mentality of human beings to follow authority and a minority of individuals, cannot be understated. Many people simply do not think for themselves and this reality allows a minority of people like feminists, to easily control large groups of people once they hold positions of authority in institutions and government.

Slavery was considered normal for centuries by our leaders, authorities and institutions and was widespread, as was barbaric punishment and torture. Only in the last two hundred years or so and after wars and huge political movements and massive legal reform, have slavery and inhumane punishment been mostly abolished and outlawed. People had the same arguments about slavery being natural and inevitable in the past, as people do today about gynocentrism.

Just like back then, the arguments today about gynocentrism being inevitable do not have substance when you examine them more closely. This is the naturalistic fallacy in action. The fact gynocentrism has natural or biological underpinnings, does not then mean it is morally acceptable, desirable, inevitable or a healthy expression of human behaviour.

The education system out of all of the institutions, plays a key role in normalising gynocentrism. Many boys and girls in school can now go through most of their education from kindergarten to postgraduate education, with few male teachers. The influence of feminist ideology is now present at the primary or elementary level and has been present at the university level for years.

The education system has now essentially become a system of feminist indoctrination and gynocentrism. This sort of environment does have impacts on the behaviour of children and the adults they will become. Like the changes in family structure, the feminisaton of the education system has played a major role in spreading and promoting gynocentrism in society.

Former KGB agent and defector Uri Bezmenov, warned in an interview more than 30 years ago,15 about the feminist and marxist takeover of our institutions and the ideological subversion of Western democracy. He made some very eerie predictions that help explain today’s society. Controlling the education system is key. He discusses the four stages of the takeover of society by the far left in the interview (demoralisation, destabilisation, crisis and normalisation).

He explains the first stage which is called demoralisation. This involves indoctrinating multiple generations of students in far left ideology in the education system. From there these people infect the government, academia, corporations and our institutions and then spread far left ideology within these organisations. He explains how the brainwashing occurring in the education system, corrupts people’s perception to the point where they cannot make logical sense of information. After years of indoctrination, their thinking is bounded within an ideological framework and they cannot see beyond that framework.

Sound familiar? It should. Uri was explaining what modern Western society would become 30 years ago. Think of all the revelations that have come out on the working environments of employees in the tech sector and in academia and the disruptive and violent protests on university campuses.

Gynocentric Superorganisms

Related to the previous reason behind why gynocentrism is normalised, is the influence of superorganisms on society and how they have succumbed to gynocentrism. MRA blogger Angry Harry, did an excellent series looking at the impact of superorganisms on human behaviour and how powerful they are in shaping it (See Angry Harry’s MRA corner on AVFM and check out the 4 part series titled, “Those Who Rules Over Us”).16

Superorganisms in the social context can be thought of as entities comprised of thousands, sometimes millions and even billions of individuals, that appear to mimic the properties of a living organism and wield enormous influence on society. Religions, governments, corporations, institutions and cities are examples of superorganisms. People in this context can be considered cells of these superorganisms. If we look at human civilisation as a superorganism, the slogan “feminism is cancer” is quite fitting.

Gynocentrism can be thought of in the context of superorganisms, as the underlying germ of a disease of the superorganism. It infects healthy human cells of the superorganism and then spreads throughout the superorganism. Eventually the superorganism succumbs to gynocentrism and then infects other superorganisms. Feminism could be considered a vector of the gynocentric germ that helps it spread, like how a mosquito is a vector of Malaria.

Superorganisms as Angry Harry explained, have enormous influence over our society and the individual behaviour of people. Corporations, governments, religion and institutions shape the way of life for billions of people. Gynocentrism has infested many of these superorganisms and turned them into gynocentric zombies. These infected entities can and have inflicted terrible damage on society.

Think of the impact feminist infested universities have had on society. Think of the impact the gynocentric legal system has had on the nuclear family, fathers and the lives of men. Think of the impact the feminised education system has had on the boy crisis in education. Think of the impact the gynocentric bias of the tech sector has had on the information that the public is exposed to and their censorship and filtering of alternative non-gynocentric viewpoints.

Learned Helplessness And The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Of Gynocentrism

Men and boys in today’s society to a substantial degree, are exhibiting signs of learned helplessness. Many men and boys have essentially been conditioned to accept that gynocentrism is normal and inescapable. Once men and boys internalise that dangerous false belief, they accept their own marginalisation and disposability every day and in doing so enable gynocentrism to have almost complete dominance over society. Learned helplessness has been linked to depression17 and is no doubt a major factor driving the epidemic of male suicide. Learned helplessness fuels a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If men and boys believe there is no other way to live, then gynocentrism becomes inevitable and this fate then reinforces the belief that gave rise to it. Beliefs can be very destructive things when they go unquestioned, despite leading to highly destructive outcomes.

Men going their own way (MGTOW) is a pathway out of gynocentrism for men. It involves unlearning pathological gynocentric beliefs and daring to believe there is another way to live. Whilst it may not be easy to go against the social current of society, it is possible and once the rewards of going your own way become clear, it becomes easier and easier and easier to go your own way. We are social creatures and part of overcoming learned helplessness for men involves abandoning concern for social ostracism, particularly from women and learning how to identify and manage the risks that a predatory gynocentric society presents, so you can live life in your own way and avoid entrapment and attack.

Men and boys are punished for performing and exhibiting their natural masculine nature and at the same time ridiculed for failing to perform and demonstrate a masculine nature. At the same time that men are told they must live up to the hypergamous expectations of women to earn more money than their female counterparts in order to be worthy of a relationship with women, they are cast as privileged oppressors and blamed for the gender pay gap if they do earn more money than women.

Men are told they are losers if they do not perform and then are told they are privileged oppressors when they do perform. Women will write articles about “where are all the good men” and then write other articles about the gender wage gap and how we need female quotas in upper management and corporate boards because of male privilege. It is a double bind. Men have no escape from social ostracism if they follow external societal pressures and succumb to herd mentality and social pressure to conform. Such men must accept the message from society they are inferior, violent, privileged and evil oppressors.

MGTOW is the healthy alternative. MGTOW involves finding your own way in life, independent of what the culture or society or women expects of you or what they think of you. MGTOW is the only way out for men from the gynocentric prison society has been turned into. To borrow a line from the Shawshank Redemption you either, “get busy living or get busy dying”.

The biases in human perception, thinking and behaviour discussed, combined with the changes in family structure, the proliferation of superstimuli with mass communication and the influence of gynocentric institutions, media and authority figures, keep the silent killer that is gynocentrism from being detected and addressed by civilisation and by individuals.

To fight this, we need to develop greater self-awareness in society and awareness of what gynocentrism is and the harms it can and does cause. We need organised resistance to gynocentrism to emerge at the individual level of men going their own way and at the collective level of a well-funded and well organised men’s movement to tackle institutional and legalised gynocentrism. Either we address gynocentrism, or the harsh forces of natural selection will remove gynocentric behaviour from the human evolutionary lineage, or worse put the entire human race into the fossil record. For the superorganisms of society, they will have to either rid themselves of gynocentrism or look forward to bankruptcy or collapse. For the individual man, you either overcome gynocentrism or you suffer for it and in some cases lose everything, including your life.

It is our choice, we can either do this the easy way or the hard way individually, and as a society. It takes discipline to recondition ourselves out of bad habits and develop the self-awareness to recognise and stop bad behaviours. It does not happen overnight. Websites like AVFM, men’s discussion and support groups and male friendly life coaches and mental health professionals, can help with that process.

MGTOW helps in a big way in overcoming gynocentrism. MGTOW or men going their own way, is grounded on the fundamental principle of self-control. You cannot go your own way without it! MGTOW and its continued growth is direct proof it is possible for men to overcome years of gynocentric programming, instinctual and emotional impulses and take the red pill.

But like I said nothing happens overnight. That goes for individual change and also for societal change. Just because change is slow, does not mean change is impossible or will not eventually lead to profound shifts in people’s lives and the way society functions. Every journey begins with a single first step. It is time men broke free of their psychological bondage and dared to recognise and accept their true intrinsic value, in the face of a gynocentric society that would prefer they did not.

It is not just biology at play when we are talking about gynocentrism. Social, political, institutional, economic, informational and cultural factors, are also involved in normalising the social pathology we call gynocentrism. We are indeed living in the matrix of gynocentrism. Most people are still asleep in the matrix. We need to stop normalising gynocentrism by addressing the ten causes responsible for its normalisation discussed earlier. MGTOW and a well funded and organised men’s movement, would go a long way to achieving that objective.

We are at a critical period in human civilisation where we need to move beyond outmoded gynocentric ways of thinking and behaving if we expect civilisation to survive. Technology cannot be uninvented and we cannot return to a traditionalist path. Simply ending feminism will not be sufficient to advance society either. Gynocentrism has now become an unsustainable problem for society.

Tens of thousands of years ago when we humans transitioned from a hunter-gatherer existence to primitive civilisation, the dynamics between the sexes changed. Now we face a similar challenge to change those dynamics again, as a result of rapid technological change over the last two centuries. Dr. Warren Farrell has in the past described the need for a gender transition movement, to recognise and address this reality.

The Kardashev scale18 lays out the stage of technological advancement of civilisations. Human civilisation is currently undergoing a transition from a type 0 civilisation, to a type 1 civilisation in which we control all of the energy available on the planet and coming from the parent star (currently we can only make use of a fraction of the energy available). Technologies of a type 1 civilisation include: nuclear fusion and renewable energy on a large scale, the capacity to produce large quantities of antimatter etc. Some of these technologies we have obtained, some we are on the cusp of and other technology is quite a while away.

In several decades if everything goes right, we may have a permanent, sizeable and self-sustaining settlement on Mars. All of this civilisational advancement, requires a society that remains socially stable, free, safe, educated and prosperous enough to permit the required technological progress to occur and to ensure the technology is not used to destroy ourselves.

The relationship between men and women forms the backbone of the family and the family forms the backbone of society. Gynocentrism is now threatening to destroy the backbone of the family and of society. We need to wake up, otherwise the future for humanity is looking bleak. External threats like nuclear weapons appear to be well recognised. The same does not seem to apply for gynocentrism and the scale of the threat it poses for the continued existence of human civilisation. This needs to change.


[1] Slaying The Dragon. Peter Wright & Paul Elam, A Voice For Men (2018).

[2] The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It. Dr. Warren Farrell & Dr. John Gray (2018)

[3] Chasing The Dragon. Peter Wright & Paul Elam, A Voice For Men (2016).

[4] Self-Control And The Human Brain: The Neuroscience Of Impulse Control. Elana Glowatz, Medical Daily (2017)

[5] Demographic Winter – the decline of the human family (Full Movie) Rick Stout. Acuity Productions. YouTube (Accessed 2018)

[6] Women believe they live in the age of entitlement. Miranda Devine, The Daily Telegraph (2012)

[7] Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? Rudman, Laurie A.,Goodwin, Stephanie A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 87(4), Oct 2004, 494-509

[8] Elaboration likelihood model. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)

[9] Why Can’t We Hate Men? Suzanna Danuta Walters, The Washington Post (2018)

[10] The End of Men. Hanna Rosin, The Atlantic (2010)

[11] Partner Abuse State Of Knowledge Project (PASK) FACTS AND STATISTICS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT-A-GLANCE (Accessed 2018)

[12] Systems Biology. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)

[13] How did life become Multicellular?-Mysteries of Life #2. Ben G Thomas. YouTube (Accessed 2018).

[14] Stanford Prison Experiment. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)

[15] Uri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete) G. Edward Griffin. American Media. All West Video. The Reality Zone. YouTube (Accessed 2018)

[16] Angry Harry’s MRA Corner (Accessed 2018)

[17] Learned Helplessness: Seligman’s Theory of Depression (+ Cure). Positive Psychology Program (2018)

[18] Kardashev scale. Wikipedia (Accessed 2018)
Peter Ryan, also called TheAntigynocentrist, is a man going his own way who dares to believe men are not disposable and challenges the gynocentric zeitgeist. Peter’s blog is Theantigynocentrist.wordpress.com

Slaying the dragon

In an earlier piece Chasing The Dragon, we outlined Nikolaas Tinbergen’s concept of the supernormal stimulus (or superstimulus), which he characterized as an exaggerated environmental stimulus to which there is an existing tendency in animals to respond, or a stimulus that elicits a response more strongly than the stimulus for which it evolved.

Tinbergen demonstrated the phenomenon by placing a larger artificial egg in the nest of an oystercatcher bird which lays several eggs and then chooses the largest one to incubate. The bird made fruitless attempts to retrieve the oversized egg and place it in the nest, while neglecting its own real, normal-sized egg. Even though giant eggs never occur in nature, larger eggs are usually healthier so the animal generally improves its genetic success by retrieving a larger egg first. In another experiment, Tinbergen placed a football-sized egg in the nest of a herring gull who showed preference for the grotesquely large egg, even though it was unable to move it into the nest and kept sliding off when attempting to sit on it.

Supernormal stimuli are bigger or more intense than normal in color, shape, texture, or smell; eliciting an abnormally exaggerated response from the animal or human. We referred to that exaggerated response as a superresponse; one that, applied to humans, contributes to the increasing discord, unhappiness and confusion among men and women today. Just like the herring gull we are sliding off the egg in every which way, failing to identify the mechanism behind it.

Humans are wired to respond to superstimuli, having numerous biological tendencies that can be misdirected through the deployment of an artificial stimulus. Even in the beginning, human babies will smile at an oval shape cardboard cut-out with two dark circles where eyes would be, providing one of the earliest examples of the human face as a sign stimulus and a ‘releaser’ of the innate response mechanism.

Think also of the nipple to which a human baby automatically gropes and begins sucking, and of the larger-than-normal plastic pacifier that infants will hungrily suck as an early example of the superstimulus at work. No breast, no milk, indeed no mother but it will pacify just the same. Examples of the phenomenon multiply as humans mature, acquiring as they do a habituated attraction to superstimuli that the modern world is now manufacturing on a scale unprecedented in human history. All of this, we think, forments the kind of unsustainable lunacy that now characterizes human interactions — especially those which are sexual in nature.

Attempts to deconstruct the insanity abound but almost none seem to be making a difference to our relational malaise. While offering some sharp observations, the theorizing from gender studies departments, nutty liberals, politicians, religious conservatives or evolutionary psychologists have done little to explain the root biological mechanisms for the madness, and that’s where supernormal stimuli, and their unhealthy growth in the modern world, might provide a new area of exploration and discussion.

One reason for avoiding discussion of the supernormal stimulus theory may be that people like to rest on more mechanistic, determinist and ultimately reductionist explanations for human behavior, preferring as they do a less manipulable ‘lock-and-key’ explanation. That approach eschews the ramifications of supernormal stimulus that would place more onus on a variable environment and its manipulations in regards to human behavior. Those with a reductive bent might like to fool themselves into believing that infant pacifiers, artificial intelligence, silicone breasts, cosmetics and sexbots have been with is since the Pleistocene, but of course such superstimuli are relatively new to the human species.

Evolutionary Psychologists for example, especially those cherishing a fantasy of ‘traditional gender roles’ to guide and ultimately bias their research, tend to omit the theory of superstimuli from their discourse because it indicates primal urges can and do overrun their evolutionary purpose – eg. pathological displays in even ‘traditional’ gender relations as case in point. The operation of the supernormal stimulus reveals their “normal biological response” of “traditional evolutionary sex roles” to be a pathological perversion, in which case the theory is swiftly overlooked. That move however leaves a lacuna in the theoretical base of Evolutionary Psychology, and its research results may equally suffer.

Dierdre Barrett, author of Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purposeremarks that many evolutionary concepts have been applied to human behavior either formally in Evolutionary Psychology or have just crossed over into popular conversation. “However the importance of superstimuli” states Barrett, “doesn’t seem to have been fully appreciated in either of those arenas.”1 She states (quote);

Evolutionary Psychology has picked up a lot of Darwin’s ideas, and some ethology ideas which is the Darwinian branch of animal behavior that Tinbergen was a part of. But somehow Evolutionary Psychology never adopted the idea of supernormal stimuli, and I really think that of all the evolutionary concepts it’s the most important and the most directly relevant to human behavior.”2

Independently of Barrett we have been applying the concept to human populations, and with her believe it to be the most important and relevant fact to human behavior today, particularly as it shows in the addict-like behaviors plaguing modern humans and relationships.


Venus of Willendorf, statue exaggerating body and breast stimuli.

Mythology itself has been suggested as a form of supernormal stimuli, a position forwarded by the late Joseph Campbell in his Masks of God series. There he statesWhile the influence of superstimuli is responsible for a range of destructive and potentially anti-species outcomes, it is not altogether new. Observe for example the Venus of Willendorf whose exaggerated body parts would have elicited a possible superresponse in those who carved and first gazed on her. Think also of the cave paintings in Lascaux with their stylized renditions of animals, or of shaman dressed in animal costumes, not to mention the ritual enactments of animal behaviors in traditional cultures who routinely adorned themselves with animal skins or feathers and engaged in theatric play that would have acted as supernormal stimuli inducing longing, wonder, fear or hunger in the audience.

There is a phenomenon known to the students of animal behavior as the “supernormal sign stimulus,” which has never been considered, as far as I know, in relation either to art and poetry or to myth; yet which, in the end, may be our surest guide to the seat of their force…

Within the field of the study of animal behavior— which is the only area in which controlled experiments have made it possible to arrive at dependable conclusions in the observation of instinct—two orders of innate releasing mechanisms have been identified, namely, the stereotyped, and the open, subject to imprint. In the case of the first, a precise lock-key relationship exists between the inner readiness of the nervous system and the external sign stimulus triggering response; so that, if there exist in the human inheritance many—or even any—IRMs of this order, we may justly speak of “inherited images” in the psyche. The mere fact that no one can yet explain how such lock-key relationships are established does not invalidate the observation of their existence: no one knows how the hawk got into the nervous system of our barnyard fowl, yet numerous tests have shown it to be, de facto, there. However, the human psyche has not yet been, to any great extent, satisfactorily tested for such stereotypes, and so, I am afraid, pending further study, we must simply admit that we do not know how far the principle of the [stereotyped] inherited image can be carried when interpreting mythological universals…

The concept of the sign stimulus as an energy-releasing and -directing image clarifies, however, the difference between literary metaphor, which is addressed to the intellect, and mythology, which is aimed primarily at the central excitatory mechanisms (CEMs) and innate releasing mechanisms (IRMs) of the whole person. According to this view, a functioning mythology can be defined as a corpus of culturally maintained sign stimuli fostering the development and activation of a specific type, or constellation of types, of human life. Furthermore, since we now know that no images have been established unquestionably as innate, that our IRMs are not stereotyped but open, whatever “universals” we may find in our comparative study must be assigned rather to common experience than to endowment; while, on the other hand, even where sign stimuli may differ, it need not follow that the responding IRMs differ too. Our science is to be simultaneously biological and historical throughout, with no distinction between “culturally conditioned” and “instinctive” behavior, since all instinctive human behavior is culturally conditioned, and what is culturally conditioned in us all is instinct: specifically, the CEMs and IRMs of this single species.3

As detailed in Chasing The Dragon, nascent experimentation with superstimuli by our remote ancestors slowly increased from stone carvings, shaman costumes and mythological imagery, and went into overdrive in the Middle Ages with the birth of mass-produced cosmetics, the fashion industry, romantic love tropes, and the invention of the printing press. That revolution has been furthered by the invention of plastic surgery and the harnessing of electricity with its mediums of cinema, radio, television, internet, cellphone and the gaming console; all serving the superstimuli trends of the culture in which they were born.

In Chasing The Dragon we reviewed three domains of human instinct that have been hypnotized by the creation of superstimuli. Briefly reviewed as follows these are:

1. Neoteny and the parental instinct

While there are notable exceptions, adult women are not generally endowed with neotenous features sufficient to provoke men to find them cute in the way of a small child. Artifice however makes up for it by allowing women to imitate the features of children through the application of cosmetics or cultivation of childish gestures, with the ultimate aim of shirking responsibility and being cared for by a man and society with the least amount of effort on her part. Naturally such a routine robs her of agency, parentifies the man, and becomes a drag on relationships.

The following instruction video for women from the Fascinating Womanhood Movement provides an example of how this biological ruse, essentially a feigned neoteny, is a result of cultural learning (1.37 to 2.33):

The instruction for women to feign childlikeness is now endemic in the Western world, which may account at least partially for the tradition of ‘women and children first’ – a statement that captures not only that women look after children, but that they themselves are children in need of saving – in which sense the phrase might be more accurately rendered as ‘Children and children first.’

2. Sexual stimuli and sexual arousal

We regularly hear hand-wringing about the increase in skimpy, sexualized clothing among women and even young girls, along with the booming trend in tummy tucks, butt implants, botox injections, lip augmentation and boob jobs. We are told that women become overly reliant of these powerful methods of superstimulating men’s sexuality, and we are equally told that this makes sex like a powerful drug and leads to sex addiction. In a sense they are not completely wrong – the supersizing of sexual phenomena do result in an addiction-like intensity or what we have called the superresponse.

Many men and MGTOW have said NO to the exploitative potential that comes with female use of superstimuli, men who ironically opt out of relationships with real women in favor of more superstimuli in the form of internet porn and neotenous sexbots – superstimuli over which they secure full control. While a certain degree of superstimuli may prove healthy in catering to one’s sexual needs, it is up to each man to determine whether the stimuli are catering to a healthy expression of needs, or into an overly intense superstimulus and unhealthy superresponse.

3. Pairbonding – secure and insecure

In the pre medieval period simple courtship practices and arranged marriages ruled, leaving little room for the supernormal exaggerations of attachment security that we see in practice today. Modern rules for pairbonding are encapsulated in the notion of romantic love, which unfortunately turns out to be a cornucopia of destructive superstimuli. Romantic love is geared to fostering an extreme tension between feelings of possessing and losing a pairbond. It relies on an oscillation between secure and insecureattachment that generates a supernormal intensity of lovers’ feelings for each other, with the downside of inner turmoil and insecurity that feeds relational dysfunction and not infrequently psychological illnesses.

The poets are not lying when they say love is like a roller-coaster ride.

Frank Tallis’ book Love Sick: Love as a Mental Illness elaborates on the kind of pathologies that come hand-in-hand with the romantic-love based approach to pairbonding. From the blurb on Tallis book we read;

Obsessive thoughts, erratic mood swings, insomnia, loss of appetite, recurrent and persistent images and impulses, superstitious or ritualistic compulsions, delusion, the inability to concentrate — that exhibiting just five or six of these symptoms is enough to merit a diagnosis of a major depressive episode. Yet we all subconsciously welcome these symptoms when we allow ourselves to fall in love. In Love Sick, Dr. Frank Tallis considers our experiences and expressions of love, and why the combinations of pleasure and pain, ecstasy and despair, rapture and grief have come to characterize what we mean when we speak of falling in love. Tallis examines why the agony associated with romantic love continues to be such a popular subject for poets, philosophers, songwriters, and scientists, and questions just how healthy our attitudes are and whether there may in fact be more sane, less tortured ways to love. A highly informative exploration of how, throughout time, principally in the West, the symptoms of mental illness have been used to describe the state of being in love, this book offers an eloquent, thought-provoking, and endlessly illuminating look at one of the most important aspects of human behavior.4

Tallis traces the sickness-making version of pairbonding to its origin in the middle ages, and rightly suggests there are less tortured ways to love. Humans have loved less tortuously in the long past, and we might hope it’s possible to relate that way again in the stability and simplicity of a secure attachment. To love in that way however requires a slaying the dragon; finding alternative modes of pairbonding to those we’ve been duped into following.


Recognition of supernormal stimuli and their proliferation in the modern world answers the Why question, which leads us naturally to the question of What – what can we do to manage this biological and cultural travesty? As concluded in our previous article we can begin by recognizing we’ve been hypnotized by a stage show of sound and light, and deciding that we no longer wish to indulge it. As we suggested there it’s as simple as choosing not to chase the dragon, but to slay it. In essence we can say the dragon represents our unmoderated appetite, given freely and stupidly over to the snares of superstimili, and our thus-far untapped discernment and discipline can serve as the sword of redress.

Slaying of the dragon demands we employ our substantial neocortexes which are designed for overriding primitive impulses that lead us willy nilly into pain and injury. With that we can construct a defensive, self-protective approach toward the activities and the people we might choose to associate with, activating the traditional values of restraint, delayed gratification, conservation and self-protection against the arrival of superstimuli in our field of vision.

Think of it this way. By overriding our knee-jerk attraction to the false neoteny created by women’s makeup and sexually exaggerated dress, we build in a defense against gynocentric obedience as well as a protective measure for screening out personality disordered women from our lives. That is one application of many.

By that path we find a way forward, but also strangely a way back – back to the protective values of past cultures; to Buddhist teachings about pleasure as an illusion and potential suffering; to the Christian teachings of the Seven Deadly Sins and how to resist them; or to the messages of classical myth which invite us to hold fast to our values like Odysseus who tied himself to the ship’s mast in order to resist the Siren’s call, knowing that all the boons of Penelope await him at Ithaca as a result of his intelligent avoidance of gratification.


[1] Deirdre Barrett, Ph.D. Talk on Supernormal Stimuli, at TAM 2012
[2] Discussion with Dierdre Barrett and Natasha Mitchell, Radio National Science, Technology and Culture Program, 2011
[3] Joseph Campbell, Primitive Mythology, Vol. 4 in Masks of God Series, 1959
[4] Frank Tallis Love Sick: Love as a Mental Illness, Da Capo Press, 2005 (GoodReads synopsis)

The tantalizing pairbond

We have all heard the advice of the seasoned matron to younger women; “Don’t turn your love on like a tap or he will lose interest – withhold some affection and you’ll always have him begging for more.”

Attachment 2 smallThis message is now so widespread that animal-training techniques are being redeployed by women who wish to control their man’s attachment needs. In How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers we read,

Consistently a dog is “nicest” when he wants to be fed. Then he becomes all wags and licks. A known trick for keeping a dog on his best behavior is to just fill his bowl halfway so he’s yearning for more.

Same goes for his appetite for affection. Keep him in constant emotional hunger for you and he’ll be more attentive and easier to control.

As cruel as it sounds, withholding affection, sex, approval and love have become part of women’s repertoire of superstimuli used to coerce men into service. Perhaps there was a time when that service could have been considered an appropriate response to a survival oriented stimulus. Now, however, it has been replaced by superstimuli and male service has degenerated into a destructive superresponse.

Such dating advice for women abounds on the internet with the aim to intensify a man’s desire by turning a secure bond, a necessity for healthy relationships, into a brass ring. Only on the ride of romantic chivalry, like all carnival sideshows, the game is rigged. The brass ring remains ever just out of reach.

Men’s basic human need for love, acceptance, and security, is frustrated, leaving them in a perpetual cycle of deprivation.

Indeed, it is one of the core principles of romantic love to keep the bond in the realm of tantalizing denial, and men, therefore in constant readiness to be manipulated and used.

TantalusThe word tantalizing comes from the Greek story of Tantalus. Tantalus, as the fable goes, offended the Gods. His punishment was to be placed in a river with the water up to his neck. A tree full of ripe, red apples leaned toward him.

The Gods afflicted him with a raging thirst and hunger. When he bent his head down to slake his thirst – the waters receded. Likewise, when he reached up to grab one of the apples, the branch recoiled higher and out of his reach.

Women are socialized to tantalize men with the possibility of pair-bonding, to keep fruit of love ever out of reach, and to further muddy the waters with the dictates of romantic chivalry.

If you want that pair-bond, which is to say if you want to be more tantalized, you had better greet her with flowers, hold the door open, and of course pick up the bill.

Be prepared to live that way for the rest of your life, exiled to the river with Tantalus, ever thirsty and hungry. In modern times, simple attachment is transformed into something complex – an impulse now guided by customs of a romantic chivalry, designed to tilt maximum power toward the woman.

Even when the pair-bond is supposedly attained, you may still experience the withdrawal of love, sex and approval as a method of control. It can even be worse once bonded than during the courtship process.

Such behavior from women is not a simple, innate reflex, but one in which they are culturally educated and socialized. Most girls become fluent in the game of inclusion and exclusion, in groups or among friends, well before the reach the age of 10 and the meta-rules learned there reappear again in popular dating advice – rules designed to meddle in the attachment security we social creatures would otherwise enjoy sans the manipulations.

The rules for women resonate shamelessly throughout an entire genre of literature:

  • Keep an air of mystery
  • Only put in 30 percent effort
  • Make him come to you
  • Never see him with less than 7 days notice
  • Never call him unless returning a call
  • Never return a call or text immediately
  • Make him approach you
  • Don’t call back immediately. You are a girl in demand.
  • End call first after 15 minutes ALWAYS. (Even though it sucks. He will call you more.)
  • Even if you are not busy, pretend like you are

Those items are the product of a cursory scan of just two internet dating sites with advice for women. They are not, however, an invention of the information age. They are the long codified expressions of what women have been taught, from generation to generation, since the advent of romantic chivalry.

They are obedience training basics for conditioning the romantically chivalrous man — superstimuli, powerfully effective in eliciting a superresponse. In this case, servile, blind sycophancy from weak, non-introspective men.